A strawman argument, or attacking a strawman, is a common type of fallacious argument. The strawman argument mischaracterizes an opponent’s position then attacks the distorted version of the opponent’s argument. Done intentionally, the strawman argument creates an appearance the issue was addressed when, in actuality, the true issue was avoided and only the false representation of the issue was addressed. Done unintentionally, the strawman argument is a product of misunderstanding the issue.
The strawman argument can be structured as follows:
Person 1 raises an issue, makes a point, or asserts an argument
Person 2 mischaracterizes the issue
Person 2 then refutes the mischaracterized version of the argument
The tactic relies on the opponent, or the audience, not recognizing the switch. When done effectively, the strawman argument resembles the true issue closely enough, or convincingly enough, to lead others into believing the initial issue was addressed. One who falls prey to the strawman argument might yield in defeat or be lured into an argument against the mischaracterized position.
How is this Useful?
Recognizing and defeating strawman arguments can aid us in our personal study, group discussion, and apologetics.
If we recognize invalid thinking on our own part, we can self-correct to improve our understanding of scripture. Our personal study should include continuously testing and refining our understanding of scripture so we can arrive at the soundest interpretation possible.
If we recognize invalid reasoning in a fellow believer, we can help correct his or her interpretation of scripture. This is how discipleship and group study should work. We should be able to listen to one another’s interpretation of scripture, find weaknesses in reasoning, and urge one another to make correction. The worst form of discipleship is a master telling an apprentice what to think and believe without valid reasoning to support it. The worst form of group study is for everyone to express personal opinions with nobody speaking against rhetoric and fallacy.
If we recognize an invalid argument from an antagonist, we can effectively refute his or her objections to scripture. Ideally, if the other person is genuinely seeking truth, this might cause him to reconsider his position. Otherwise, we cannot change the other person but we can effectively defend the word of God and our faith.
The primary way I refute strawman arguments is to recognize the mischaracterization of my position, directly call the other person on it, and insist my original position be answered. If the other person won’t answer the position I actually raised, then he is not genuinely reasoning and discussing. Therefore, there’s no value in continuing the exchange. However, if the other person acknowledges having misunderstood my position then we can communicate and work through it.
The Strawman in Action
I had a pastor argue with me over doctrine and interpretation of scripture. I raised the point that in Exodus 12, God repeatedly stated observance of His holy days of Passover and Unleavened Bread is an eternal commandment. However, popular doctrine tells us Jesus brought an end to Passover and Unleavened Bread in the first century.
Given that God said Passover is to be kept throughout our generations as a statute forever (Exodus 12:14)
And, Unleavened Bread is to be kept throughout our generations as a statute forever (Exodus 12:17)
And, these holy days are to be observed by both Jews and Gentiles (Exodus 12:19)
And, we are to observe these holy days forever (Exodus 12:24)
Then, how could Jesus have ended these holy days in the first century?
I proposed that if the common doctrine of Jesus putting an end to God’s holy days is true, then there is an apparent discrepancy between popular doctrine and Exodus 12. I proposed four possible solutions to the apparent discrepancy:
God lied — Being omniscient, God had to know His holy days would come to an end in the first century. So, when God told Moses His holy days are forever He was lying.
God erred — When God said His holy days are to be observed forever as eternal statutes, He genuinely meant it. But, later He found out He was mistaken and His holy days weren’t really forever.
God changed — God genuinely intended His holy days to be forever when He told Moses so. However, God later decided to go in a different direction and renege on His word.
Popular doctrine is false — Because scripture tells us God never lies, makes mistakes, or changes and the Son of God only does the will of his Father in heaven, then the popular doctrine that runs contrary to Exodus 12 cannot be true.
In response to this issue and its supporting reasoning, the pastor said, “He’s God. He can do what He wants.”
Spotting the Strawman in the Field
My issue was that popular doctrine regarding God’s holy days contradicts God’s word. The only way the doctrine could be true is for God’s word to be false, because the two are mutually exclusive statements.
The pastor mischaracterized my position as a challenge to God’s sovereignty. The pastor’s response did not address the point I raised but tried to refute my position by asserting that I was denying God has authority to create or terminate holy days.
It was never my intention to deny God’s authority to create or terminate holy days. So, the pastor was attacking a strawman that he set up.
Special Pleading
The pastor’s counter-argument is also classified as another fallacy known as special pleading. Special pleading occurs when an established standard or fact is ignored in defense of one’s position, without any logically valid reason for the exception. Special pleading can take forms such as:
That is true, but not in this case.
That is the rule, but it doesn’t apply in this circumstance.
The pastor’s argument “He’s God. He can do what He wants” is a type of special pleading commonly used to defend one’s doctrinal position when he or she has no way to refute an opposing argument. The “He can do what He wants” argument effectively shuts down all reason and discussion. The argument basically says, “I don’t know, and it doesn’t make sense, but I choose to believe this. If you disagree then you’re denying God’s sovereignty, and that’s your problem.”
Actually, scripture tells us there are a number of things God cannot do. God cannot lie. God cannot sin. God cannot be tempted. God cannot be corrupted. God cannot break His word or His covenants.
In my exchange with the pastor, I worked him into a tough corner that he couldn’t get out of. He could not simply admit he doesn’t accept Exodus 12 as true and binding; otherwise, he’d be beaten for denying scripture. But, he also couldn’t admit his doctrine is wrong because then he’d have to either change or acknowledge he’s willfully going against scripture. So, he used special pleading. The pastor essentially said, “Yes, God did say His holy days are forever. And, yes, God cannot lie, break His word, or make mistakes. But God did put an end to His holy days, and that doesn’t count as lying or breaking His word because He’s God.”
Go and Fail no More
As always, I urge everyone to study in context, use valid reasoning, and test everything to see if it holds true. Break free from the traps of dogma, rhetoric, and fallacious arguments.
Join the discussion on Facebook